DOCSLIB.ORG

REPTILES; PREDATORS Aild AMPHIBIANS and BIRDS Cook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AiiPHIBIA.NS AfJD REPTILES; PREDATORS AilD PREY AMPHIBIANS AND BIRDS by Willian-L E. Cook Columbia Greene Community College BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERPETOLOG ICAL REFERENCES IN AUSTRALIAN ORNITHOLOGICAL JOURNALS r-sT^^^TViY) by Glenn M. Shea <cC^\-\"\ 1 University of Sydney ^ SMITHSONIAN HERPETOLOGICAL INFORMATION SERVICE NO. 73 INTRODUCTION This publication provides a reasonably extensive bibli- ography of the literature on predator/prey relationships among amphibians and birds. In addition, an index has been prepared that includes four lists which cross reference predator and prey species. This index enables one to quickly find the citations relating to particular amphibians or birds. The lists, which follow this introduction and precede the bibliography, are titled: Birds that Eat Amphibians, Amphibians Eaten by Birds, Amphibians that Eat Birds, and Birds Eaten by Amphibians. The organisms are listed phylogene t ically in the first column of the index. The interacting species and references are listed in the second and third columns alphabetically by the author's name. A "-" in the index indicates the inability to determine the identity of a predator or prey species either due to the unavailability of an article or ambiguity in the article itself. The importance of a reference to predator/prey studies is three-fold. Birds seem to be a major selective force in the evolution of some amphibians. An awareness of the details of the predator/prey relationship in these cases may help elucidate aspects of amphibian and even avian evolution. Secondly, in order to understand the ecological niche, of an animal one needs to be cognizant of its range of food items and its potential enemies. Furthermore, efforts to secure legislation to protect various species must, if possible, be based on sound knowledge, not only of the abundance of these species, but also on their importance to other species. It is clear that the literature is most voluminous in the reporting of birds feeding on amphibians. 70% of the articles listed fall into this category. Surprisingly perhaps, 7% of the articles discuss cases of amphibians eating birds. Some of the selections deal with studies of mimicry or cryptic coloration in amphibians as defenses against predation by birds (e.g., Brodie, Matthews). The use of poisons as a defense strategy appears in the literature as early as 1392 by Boulenger. Behavioral defenses are reported by at least two authors (e.g., Ewert, Sazima) and the evolution of defense strategies is discussed by Wooley. Predation by birds is asserted to influence the evolution of community organization among salamanders (Jaeger) as well as the breeding location of frogs (Roca). Techniques helpful in determining percent biomass in raptor diets (Steenhof) and raptor prey species abundance (Fitzner) are presented and VJendland shows hov; owl pellets can be used to study frog distribution. Finally, if anyone has ever doubted the commercial value of amphibians, Nair and Prabhu describe how frog wastes can be converted into little cakes to be used for chicken feed. In the event that it would be desirable to elaborate on this inaugral compilation, I present the sources included thus far. The first few references were obtained from the text Biology of the Amphibians by Duellman and Trueb 1986 and from the files of Professor iMargaret M. Stewart. Two computer searches covering Biological Abstracts from 1975 to 1985 provided several more references. Copies of these articles were obtained and their bibliographies supplied further titles. The majority of the citations were, however, obtained by searching through the Zoological Record from 1864 to 1983. I wish to thank Dr. Margaret M. Stewart of the State University of New York at Albany for her assistance and encouragement. Readers may send additions and corrections to William E. Cook, Columbia-Greene Community College, Box 1000, Hudson, New York 12534. INDICES BIRDS THAT EAT AMPHIBIANS PREDATOR PREY REFERENCE Tachybaptus ruficollis "tadpole" Collinge Podiceps grisegena "frog" Collinge Pelecanus ery throrhynchos "salamanders" Sidle Phalacrocorax carbo Rana teraporaria Ponting Phalacrocorax auritus "frog" Ponting Botaurus stellaris . " frog" Collinge Ixobrychus minutus "frog" Collinge Ardeola cinerea " tadpole" Collinge "far-eastern tree frog' Korotov Ardeola grayii Rana tigerina or Sarker Bufo melanostictus Bubulcus ibis Rana tigerina or Sarker Bufo melanostictus Siegfried Ciconia ciconia Rana sp. Rekas i Cygnus olor "frog" Collinge Anas platyrhynchos " frog" Collinge Bufo americanus Mueller(1980 Anas acuta " frog" Collinge Anas clypeata " frog" Collinge Anas strepera " frog" Collinge Aythya ferina "frog" Collinge Aythya fuligula "frog" Collinge Mergus albellus "frog" Collinge Milvus migrans " frog" Andrews Rana tigerina or Sarker Bufo melanostictus Haliastur indus Rana tigerina or Sarkur Bufo melanostictus Spilornis cheela Rana tigerina or Sarker Bufo melanostictus Geranospiza caerulescens Fritziana goeldii Bokerman "small vertebrates" Jehl Circus aeruginosus Litoria aurea Baker-Gabb "frog" Collinge Circus cyaneus "frog" Collinge Bufo americanus Miller Circus pygargus "frog" Collinge Accipiter nisus " frog" Collinge Accipiter cooperii Bufo americanus Miller Buteogallus urubitinga Bufo marinus Beebe Bufo guttatus Buteo lineatus Bufo americanus Miller Buteo platypterus Bufo americanus Miller Bufo americanus Rosenf ield Rana sylvatica Rusch Buteo swainsoni Scaphiopus bombifrons Sexton Buteo jamaicensis Bufo americanus Miller Buteo buteo " frog" Collinge Rana temporaria Maguire Bombina borabina Zsolt Bufo bufo Bufo viridis Rana ridibunda Buteo regalis Rana pipiens Blair Aquila rapax Osborne Falco tinnunculus " frog" Collinge Falco sparverius Rana aurora Collopy(1983) Hyla regilla Falco vespertinus Rana arvalis Pererva Falco colurabarius Rana temporaria Rebecca Falco peregrinus "frog" Collinge Rana sp. Lindberg Falco rusticolus Rana sp. Lindberg Dendragapus canadensis Rana septentrional is Applegate Bonasa umbellus Bufo americanus Hale Rana sp. Gallus gallus Desmognathus ochrophaeu s Brandon( 1979) Salamandra salamandra Horter Desmognathus spp. Howard(1971) Desmognathus sp. Howard(1973) Plethodon cinereus Notophthalmus viridesce ns " Gyrinophilus porphyriti cus " Desmognathus ochrophaeu s Labanick Plethodon sp. Bufo americanus Miller Gallinula chloropus "tadpole" Collinge Grus canadensis Amphiuma sp. Dye Charadrius vociferus " frog" Schardien Himantopus himantopus Pleurodeles waltl Vermot Tringa totanus "frog" Collinge Tringa nebularia " frog" Collinge Rana sp. Taylor Actitis hypoleucos " tadpole" Collinge Numenius arquata " frog" Collinge Burhinus oedicnemus " frog" Collinge Larus canus Rana temporaria Ritchie Larus argentatus Rana temporaria Helle Chlidonias hybrida • Hyperolius horstockii Craig Chlidonias niger " frog" Collinge Cuculus canorus Bufo bufo McDougall Rana temporaria Geococcyx calif ornianus Parmley Tyto alba Bowman "frog" Cuisin Rana temporaria Fairley Palobates fuscus Marian Rana sp. Muselet f ) Tyto albo Ruprecht Valente Otus asio Bufo americanus Miller "salamander" Rising Bubo virginianus Ambystoma tigrinum Holman Bubo bubo Rana temporaria Schaef fer Athene noctura "frog" Collinge Athene cunicularia Scaphiopus intermontanus Gleason Ambystoma tigrinum Tyler Scaphiopus couchi Scaphiopus bombifrons Rana pipiens Strix aluco Betts Rana sp. Bozsko " frog" Collinge Delmee "amphibians" Nilsson Pelobates fuscus Wendland Strix uralensis "amphibia spp." Lundberg Strix nebulosa Rana spp. Mikkola Ceryle alcyon Rana sylvatica Seale Alcedo atthis "tadpole" Collinge Perisoreus canadensis Bufo boreas Beiswenger Pseudacris triseriata Matthews Pseudacris triseriata Tordof Cyanocitta cristata Desmognathus ochrophaeus Howard(1973) Garrulus glandarius " frog" Collinge , Corvus monedula "tadpole" " frog" Collinge , Corvus frugilegus " tadpole" "frog" Collinge Corvus brachyrhynchos Bufo americanus Miller , Corvus corone corone "tadpole" " frog" Collinge , Corvus corone cornix "tadpole" " frog" Collinge Corvus corax "frog" Collinge Troglodytes troglodytes Ranidae Czikeli , Cinclus cinclus "tadpole" " frog" Collinge Turdus merula "tadpole" Collinge Rana temporaria Evans Turdus migratorius Plethodon jordani Brandon( 1975 Pseudacris triseriata Matthews Toxostoma rufum Desmognathus sp. Howard(1973) Desmognathus sp. Jaeger Plethodon cinereus Lanius excubitor " frog" Collinge Rana temporaria Halliday Pipilo erythropthalmus Desmognathus sp. Jaeger Plethodon cinereus Quiscalus quiscula Rana pipiens Ernst Ploceus philippinus Rana limnocharis George ) ) AMPHIBIANS EATEN BY BIRDS PREDATOR REFERENCE Amphiuma sp. Grus canadensis Dye Notophthalmus viridescens Callus gallus Howard "ducks" Pope Pleurodeles waltl Himantopus himantopus Vermot Salamandra salamandra "chic kens, ducks" Horter Ambystoma tigrinum Bubo virginianus Holman Athene cunicularia Tyler Desmognathus montacola Gallus gallus Howard(1971) Desmognathus ochrophaeus Gallus gallus Brandon( 1979 "birds" Brodie(1980) Cyanocitta cristata Howard(1973) Gallus gallus Labanick Desmognathus quadramaculatus Gallus gallus Howard(1971) Gyrinophilus porphyr it icus Gallus gallus Howard(1973) Plethodon cinereus "birds" Brodie(1980) Pipilo erythrophthalmus Jaeger Toxostoma rufurn Tilley Bombina bombina Buteo buteo Zsolt Xenopus muelleri "stork" Loveridge Pelobates fuscus Tyto alba Marion Strix aluco Wendland Scaphiopus bombifrons Buteo swainsoni Sexton Athene cunicularia Tyler Scaphiopus couchi Athene cunicularia Tyler Scaphiopus holbrooki "gulls" Pearson Scaphiopus intermontanus Athene
Recommended publications
  • An Ecomorphological Analysis of Locomotion in Larvae and Neotenes of Two Salamander Species: Dicamptodon Tenebrosus (Stream-Type) and Ambystoma Gracile (Pond-Type)

    An Ecomorphological Analysis of Locomotion in Larvae and Neotenes of Two Salamander Species: Dicamptodon Tenebrosus (Stream-Type) and Ambystoma Gracile (Pond-Type)

    AN ECOMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LOCOMOTION IN LARVAE AND NEOTENES OF TWO SALAMANDER SPECIES: DICAMPTODON TENEBROSUS (STREAM-TYPE) AND AMBYSTOMA GRACILE (POND-TYPE). By Ethan Snee A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Biology Committee Membership Dr. John O. Reiss, Committee Chair Dr. Sharyn Marks, Committee Member Dr. Justus Ortega, Committee Member Dr. Micaela Szykman Gunther, Committee Member Dr. Erik Jules, Program Graduate Coordinator December 2020 ABSTRACT AN ECOMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LOCOMOTION IN LARVAE AND NEOTENES OF TWO SALAMANDER SPECIES: DICAMPTODON TENEBROSUS (STREAM-TYPE) AND AMBYSTOMA GRACILE (POND-TYPE). Ethan Snee Morphology is the physical expression of a species’ evolutionary history and adaptation to its environment and as such is tied to ecology. Salamander larvae have historically been separated into "pond-type" and "stream-type" groups based on their morphology, however no studies have been performed quantifying the relationship between morphology and ecology. In this study I utilized in-situ behavioral observations, morphological measurements, and in-lab performance tests of Dicamptodon tenebrosus (stream-type) and Ambystoma gracile (pond-type) to examine the relationship between salamander larval morphology and ecology. In the field, behavior was videorecorded during nighttime surveys; afterwards animals were captured and limb measurements were taken. Flow resistance was measured in the lab using a flow chamber and water velocity meter. Swim escapes were videorecorded in lab trials and analyzed using video analysis software. In the field, aquatic walking was the predominant form of movement observed in D. tenebrosus, constituting 98.1 percent of all movements; by contrast, aquatic walking made up only 65.4 percent of all movements in A.
  • Phalangeal Bone Anomalies in the European Common Toad Bufo Bufo from Polluted Environments

    Phalangeal Bone Anomalies in the European Common Toad Bufo Bufo from Polluted Environments

    Environ Sci Pollut Res DOI 10.1007/s11356-016-7297-6 RESEARCH ARTICLE Phalangeal bone anomalies in the European common toad Bufo bufo from polluted environments Mikołaj Kaczmarski1 & Krzysztof Kolenda 2 & Beata Rozenblut-Kościsty2 & Wioletta Sośnicka 2 Received: 7 March 2016 /Accepted: 20 July 2016 # The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Every spring, many of amphibians are killed by ximately 20 % from the rural and semi-urban sites. In partic- motor vehicles on roads. These road-killed animals can be ular, we found hypertrophic bone cells, misaligned intercellu- used as valuable material for non-invasive studies showing lar substance, and irregular outer edges of bones. We suggest the effect of environmental pollution on amphibian popula- that these malformations are caused by different pollution, e.g. tions. The aims of our research were to check whether the with heavy metals. phalanges of road-killed toads may be useful as material for histological analysis, and whether various degrees of human Keywords Amphibians . Phalangeal bone . Poland . impact influence the level in bone abnormalities in the com- Pollution . Roadkilling . Skeletochronology . Urban area mon toad. We also examined whether the sex and age struc- ture of toads can differ significantly depending in the different sites. We chose three toad breeding sites where road-killed Introduction individuals had been observed: near the centre of a city, the outskirts of a city, and a rural site. We collected dead individ- Current knowledge widely indicates a direct relationship be- uals during spring migration in 2013. The sex of each individ- tween anthropogenic pressures and the deteriorating environ- ual was determined and the toes were used to determine age mental state and/or global extinction of amphibian popula- using the skeletochronology method.
  • Toads Have Warts... and That's Good! | Nature Detectives | Summer 2021

    Toads Have Warts... and That's Good! | Nature Detectives | Summer 2021

    Summer 2021 TOADS HAVE WARTS…AND THAT’S GOOD! Warts on your skin are not good. Warts can occur when a virus sneaks into human skin through a cut. A medicine gets rid of the virus and then it’s good-bye ugly wart. Toad warts look slightly like human warts, but toad warts and people warts are not one bit the same. Toad warts are natural bumps on a toad’s back. Toads have larger lumps behind their eyes. The bumps and lumps are glands. The glands produce a whitish goo that is a foul-tasting and smelly poison. The poison is a toad’s ultimate defense in a predator attack. It is toxic enough to kill small animals, if they swallow enough of it. The toxin can cause skin and eye irritation in humans. Some people used to think toad warts were contagious. Touching a toad can’t cause human warts, but licking a toad might make you sick! Toads have other defenses too. Their camouflage green/gray/brown colors blend perfectly into their surroundings. They can puff up with air to look bigger, and maybe less appetizing. Pull Out and Save Pull Out and Pick one up, and it might pee on your hand. Toads Travel, Frogs Swim Toads and frogs are amphibians with some similarities and quite a few differences. Amphibians spend all or part of their life in water. Frogs have moist, smooth skin that loses moisture easily. A toad’s dry, bumpy skin doesn’t lose water as easily as frog skin. Frogs are always in water or very near it, otherwise they quickly dehydrate and die.
  • Common Frog Rana Temporaria

    Common Frog Rana Temporaria

    Common frog Rana temporaria Description Common frogs are common, widespread and easily recognisable amphibians. They have smooth, moist skin and long stripy legs. Common frogs are usually olive-green, although their colouration can be variable (from brown, yellow, cream or black, to pink, red, or lime-green). They have a dark patch (‘mask’) around the eye and eardrum, and often have other irregular black blotches over their body and limbs. They have large golden eyes with oval horizontal pupils. Frogs hop and jump rather than walk or crawl, and they are most active at night. They hibernate during the winter in pond mud or under piles of rotting leaves, logs or stones. Outside the breeding season, frogs are largely terrestrial and can be found in meadows, gardens and woodland. Breeding takes place in ponds, lakes, canals, and even wet grassland or puddles! Spawning usually occurs in January in the milder areas of the UK, but not until March to April in the North or upland areas. Mating pairs and masses of clumpy frogspawn can often be seen in waterbodies during this time. The eggs hatch into tadpoles within two to three weeks. What they eat Adult frogs eat snails, slugs, worms, insects and other invertebrates caught using their long sticky tongue. Young tadpoles feed on algae, but become carnivorous as they mature. Where and when to see them z Frogs can be spotted in ponds, lakes, canals, meadows, woodlands and gardens most commonly between February and October. z Look for frogspawn just below the surface of the water. Frogs lay a mass of jelly-like eggs, whereas toadspawn is produced in long strings.
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017

    List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017

    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
  • Bird Species Recorded in Alvechurch Parish 2010-2016 A) Total in Grid Squares SP0172, SP0272, SP0273, SP0274, SP0275, SP0276, SP

    Bird Species Recorded in Alvechurch Parish 2010-2016 A) Total in Grid Squares SP0172, SP0272, SP0273, SP0274, SP0275, SP0276, SP

    Bird Species Recorded in Alvechurch Parish 2010-2016 A) Total in grid squares SP0172, SP0272, SP0273, SP0274, SP0275, SP0276, SP0370, SP0371, SP0372, SP0374, SP0375, SP0376, SP0469, SP0470, SP0471, SP0472, SP0473, SP0474, SP0475, SP0476, SP0569, SP0570, SP0571, SP0572, SP0573, SP0574, SP0575 Barn Owl Green Sandpiper Pochard Barnacle Goose Green Woodpecker Red Kite Blackbird Greenfinch Redshank Blackcap Grey Heron Redwing Black-headed Gull Grey Wagtail Reed Bunting Blue Tit Greylag Goose Reed Warbler Bullfinch Herring Gull Ring Ouzel Buzzard Hobby Robin Canada Goose House Martin Rook Carrion Crow House Sparrow Sand Martin Caspian Gull Jackdaw Scaup Chaffinch Jay Sedge Warbler Chiffchaff Kestrel Shoveler Coal Tit Kingfisher Siskin Collared Dove Lapwing Skylark Common Gull Lesser Black-backed Gull Smew Common Sandpiper Lesser Redpoll Snipe Common Tern Lesser Whitethroat Song Thrush Coot Linnet Sparrowhawk Cormorant Little Egret Starling Cuckoo Little Grebe Stock Dove Curlew Little Owl Stonechat Dunnock Long-tailed Tit Swallow Feral Pigeon Magpie Swift Fieldfare Mallard Teal Gadwall Mandarin Treecreeper Garden Warbler Meadow Pipit Tufted Duck Goldcrest Mistle Thrush Turnstone Golden Plover Moorhen Wheatear Goldeneye Mute Swan Whitethroat Goldfinch Nuthatch Wigeon Goosander Osprey Willow Warbler Great Crested Grebe Oystercatcher Wood Pigeon Great Grey Shrike Peregrine Woodcock Great Northern Diver Pheasant Wren Great Spotted Woodpecker Pied Wagtail Yellowhammer Great Tit Bird Species Recorded in Alvechurch Parish 2010-2016 B) Individual grid
  • Early Onset of Breeding Season in the Green Toad Bufotes Viridis in Western Poland

    Early Onset of Breeding Season in the Green Toad Bufotes Viridis in Western Poland

    Herpetozoa 32: 109–112 (2019) DOI 10.3897/herpetozoa.32.e35825 Early onset of breeding season in the green toad Bufotes viridis in Western Poland Mikołaj Kaczmarski1, Klaudia Szala1, Janusz Kloskowski1 1 Poznan University of Life Sciences, Institute of Zoology, Wojska Polskiego 71c, 60-625, Poznań, Poland http://zoobank.org/083A67C2-D89B-4631-BFEC-D610D396E68F Corresponding author: Mikołaj Kaczmarski ([email protected]) Academic editor: Andreas Maletzky ♦ Received 29 July 2018 ♦ Accepted 9 January 2019 ♦ Published 22 May 2019 Abstract Amphibians are highly sensitive to environmental changes such as climate warming. Here, we report unusually early oviposition in two spatially isolated urban subpopulations of the green toad Bufotes viridis Laurenti, 1768, in Poznań, Western Poland. To our knowledge, we report the earliest breeding date for Central and Eastern Europe, for areas of similar latitude. We ascribe the early onset of B. viridis reproduction to an exceptionally warm spring in Western Poland in 2017. B. viridis shows flexibility in the timing of reproductive activity, however, shifts in breeding phenology may have both beneficial and detrimental population consequences. Key Words Amphibia, Anura, climate change, global warming, phenology, Poznań Global warming affects the phenology of amphibians (e.g. 2017): Park Cytadela [52°25'26"N, 16°55'56"E], a stone Beebee 1995; Muths et al. 2017), inducing shifts in repro- garden/amphitheatre with a permanent shallow concrete ductive periods that may influence amphibian populations pond (area: ca. 5,150 m2) and Park Rataje [52°23'9"N, both directly (e.g. mortality rates) and indirectly (e.g. im- 16°57'20"E], a post-industrial area containing debris and pacts on terrestrial and aquatic habitats, changes in food concrete waste, where, due to a non-permeable clay sub- webs or the spread of diseases) (Blaustein et al.
  • 2008 Amphibian Distribution Surveys in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon

    2008 Amphibian Distribution Surveys in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon

    INFORMATION REPORTS NUMBER 2010-05 FISH DIVISION Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008 Amphibian Distribution Surveys in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against as described above in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information, please contact ADA Coordinator, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 3406 Cherry Drive NE, Salem, OR, 503-947-6000. This material will be furnished in alternate format for people with disabilities if needed. Please call 541-757-4263 to request 2008 Amphibian Distribution Surveys in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon Sharon E. Tippery Brian L. Bangs Kim K. Jones Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Corvallis, OR November, 2010 This project was financed with funds administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grants under contract T-17-1 and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Citation: Tippery, S. E., B. L Bangs and K. K. Jones. 2010. 2008 Amphibian Distribution Surveys in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon. Information Report 2010-05, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis. CONTENTS FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................
  • Does Experimentally Simulated Presence of a Common Cuckoo (Cuculus Canorus) Affect Egg Rejection and Breeding Success in the Red‑Backed Shrike (Lanius Collurio)?

    Does Experimentally Simulated Presence of a Common Cuckoo (Cuculus Canorus) Affect Egg Rejection and Breeding Success in the Red‑Backed Shrike (Lanius Collurio)?

    acta ethologica (2021) 24:87–94 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-021-00362-1 ORIGINAL PAPER Does experimentally simulated presence of a common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) affect egg rejection and breeding success in the red‑backed shrike (Lanius collurio)? Piotr Tryjanowski1,2 · Artur Golawski3 · Mariusz Janowski1 · Tim H. Sparks1,4 Received: 23 September 2020 / Revised: 18 January 2021 / Accepted: 10 February 2021 / Published online: 8 March 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Providing artifcial eggs is a commonly used technique to understand brood parasitism, mainly by the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). However, the presence of a cuckoo egg in the host nest would also require an earlier physical presence of the common cuckoo within the host territory. During our study of the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio), we tested two experimental approaches: (1) providing an artifcial “cuckoo” egg in shrike nests and (2) additionally placing a stufed common cuckoo with a male call close to the shrike nest. We expected that the shrikes subject to the additional common cuckoo call stimuli would be more sensitive to brood parasitism and demonstrate a higher egg rejection rate. In the years 2017–2018, in two locations in Poland, a total of 130 red-backed shrike nests were divided into two categories: in 66 we added only an artifcial egg, and in the remaining 64 we added not only the egg, but also presented a stufed, calling common cuckoo. Shrikes reacted more strongly if the stufed common cuckoo was present. However, only 13 incidences of egg acceptance were noted, with no signifcant diferences between the locations, experimental treatments or their interaction.
  • Missouri's Toads and Frogs Booklet

    Missouri's Toads and Frogs Booklet

    TOADSMissouri’s andFROGS by Jeffrey T. Briggler and Tom R. Johnson, Herpetologists www.MissouriConservation.org © 1982, 2008 Missouri Conservation Commission Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Missouri Department of Conservation is available to all individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. Questions should be directed to the Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102, (573) 751-4115 (voice) or 800-735-2966 (TTY), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop: MBSP-4020, Arlington, VA 22203. Cover photo: Eastern gray treefrog by Tom R. Johnson issouri toads and frogs are colorful, harmless, vocal and valuable. Our forests, prairies, rivers, swamps and marshes are Mhome to a multitude of toads and frogs, but few people know how many varieties we have, how to tell them apart, or much about their natural history. Studying these animals and sharing their stories with fellow Missourians is one of the most pleasurable and rewarding aspects of our work. Toads and frogs are amphibians—a class Like most of vertebrate animals that also includes amphibians, salamanders and the tropical caecilians, which are long, slender, wormlike and legless. frogs and Missouri has 26 species and subspecies (or toads have geographic races) of toads and frogs. Toads and frogs differ from salamanders by having an aquatic relatively short bodies and lacking tails at adulthood. Being an amphibian means that tadpole stage they live two lives: an aquatic larval or tadpole and a semi- stage and a semi-aquatic or terrestrial adult stage.
  • Successful Reproduction of the Mole Salamander Ambystoma Talpoideum in Captivity, with an Emphasis on Stimuli Environmental Determinants

    Successful Reproduction of the Mole Salamander Ambystoma Talpoideum in Captivity, with an Emphasis on Stimuli Environmental Determinants

    SHORT NOTE The Herpetological Bulletin 141, 2017: 28-31 Successful reproduction of the mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum in captivity, with an emphasis on stimuli environmental determinants AXEL HERNANDEZ Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technics, University Pasquale Paoli of Corsica, Corte, 20250, France Author Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT - Generating and promoting evidence-based husbandry protocols for urodeles, commonly known as newts and salamanders, is urgently needed because most of the up-to-date ex situ programs are focused on frogs and toads than Urodela. Data on biology, life history, ecology and environmental parameters are lacking for many species and are needed to establish suitable husbandry and breeding conditions in captive environments. Two adult females and two adult males, of the mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum successfully reproduced in captivity. It was found that reproduction of this species depends on various complex stimuli: including natural photoperiod 12:12, rainwater (acidic to neutral pH) and an aquarium full of various debris. Additionally high temperature variations ranging from 2 °C to 17 °C (a decrease followed by an increase) between November and February showed that it is possible to breed adults in aquariums provided the right stimuli are applied at the right moment of time in winter. A. talpoideum shows an explosive breeding mode as previously reported for the whole genus Ambystoma. INTRODUCTION with an emphasis on the environmental determinant stimuli involved. These data may assist in improving breeding these ince the 1980s, the current global amphibian extinction salamanders under artificial conditions. crisis has been discussed and acknowledged (Wake, A.
  • Northern Spring Salamander Fact Sheet

    Northern Spring Salamander Fact Sheet

    WILDLIFE IN CONNECTICUT STATE THREATENED SPECIES © COURTESY D. QUINN © COURTESY Northern Spring Salamander Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus Background and Range The northern spring salamander is a brightly-colored member of the lungless salamander family (Plethodontidae). True to its name, it resides in cool water springs and streams, making it an excellent indicator of a clean, well- oxygenated water source. Due to its strict habitat and clean water requirements, it is only found in a handful of locations within Connecticut. The Central Connecticut Lowlands divide this amphibian's range into distinct populations. Litchfield and Hartford Counties support the greatest populations of spring salamanders. This salamander is listed as a threatened species in Connecticut. In North America, the spring salamander occurs from extreme southeastern Canada south through New England, west to Ohio, and south down the Appalachians as far as northern Georgia and Alabama. Description This large, robust salamander ranges in color from salmon to reddish-brown to purplish-brown, with a translucent white underbelly. The snout appears “square” when viewed from above and the salamander has well-defined grooves near its eyes to its snout. The tail is laterally flattened with a fin-like tip. Young spring salamanders are lighter in color and have small gills. Their coloration does not have deeper reddish tints until adulthood. Total length ranges from 5 to 7.5 inches. Habitat and Diet Spring salamanders require very clean, cool, and well-oxygenated water. They can be found in streams, brooks, and seepage areas. Preferred habitat lies within steep, rocky hemlock forests. This species is intolerant to disturbances.